> His argument basically is that an article in a general-news newspaper is not meeting the same standards as a peer reviewed paper? Are you assuming that not

> His argument basically is that an article in a general-news newspaper is not meeting the same standards as a peer reviewed paper? Are you assuming that not meeting the standards of peer reviewed journals means not meeting good journalistic standards either? In any case, Anand Ranganathan has written for peer reviewed journals[1], and he has written for this general-news outlet [2]. He's usually very good at knowing where to draw the line with citations and details. > And anyways, at the end he basically eviscerates his own response He does no such thing. His main point is up there, under the title, "For an article that talks in excruciating detail of the cataclysmic effect of Delhi’s air, Harris Gardiner quotes but a single scientific study." [1] http://www.icgeb.org/anand-ranganathan-lab.html http://www.icgeb.org/anand-ranganathan-lab.html [2] http://www.newslaundry.com/author/anand-ranganathan/ http://www.newslaundry.com/author/anand-ranganathan/